Wilson v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

September 13, 2017

WILSONv.THE STATE.

GRANT,
JUSTICE.

Appellant
Charles Rodney Wilson was convicted of murder and related
offenses in connection with the October 2012 shooting death
of Jesse Howard. Wilson now appeals, asserting various errors
in the adjudication of his motion for new trial,
insufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary error, and
improper refusal to bifurcate the trial of certain counts.
Though none of Wilson's enumerations have merit, we do
note an error in his sentencing, and we therefore affirm in
part, vacate in part, and remand for
resentencing.[1]

I.

Viewed
in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the
evidence at trial showed that Wilson, a convicted felon, shot
and killed victim Howard on October 25, 2012. Earlier that
month, Howard had broken into Wilson's car and stolen
several ounces of marijuana. During the days that followed,
Wilson sought out Howard, first at Howard's
girlfriend's workplace and then at his grandmother's
home. Wilson told Howard's girlfriend to tell him that
Wilson "got something for him, he going to do something
to him." At Howard's grandmother's home,
Howard's mother, who answered Wilson's knock at the
door and told him that Howard was not there, noticed that
Wilson "was standing at an angle, as if he had something
on his side."

On the
day of the shooting, two of Wilson's friends spotted
Howard with Scotty Hawk at the mall. Knowing that Wilson was
looking for Howard, the friends followed the men as they left
the mall in Howard's girlfriend's black Honda Accord
and drove to Stonehenge, an Athens neighborhood where both
men lived. One of the friends called Wilson and told him they
had located Howard. Wilson drove to Stonehenge and found
Howard standing in Hawk's driveway with Hawk and two
other men, Stepny Billups and Fred Hunter.

Hawk,
who had noticed he was being followed and saw Wilson's
car pull up, approached Wilson and asked what was going on.
Wilson had a handgun in his lap and was "talking in a
rage." After attempting to calm Wilson down, Hawk walked
away from Wilson's car to talk to his neighbor. Wilson
then exited the car with his gun and called to Howard to come
in the street, threatening to "whoop his ass." Hawk
told Howard to go inside because Wilson had a gun. Howard
yelled back that Wilson "ain't going to do
nothing." Wilson chambered a round, ran toward Howard,
and hit him in the head with the gun; the gun fired, and
Howard fell to the ground. Wilson fled.

Police
responders found Howard lying on the ground next to the Honda
Accord with a fatal gunshot wound to the head. The officers
observed what appeared to be a bullet mark on the side of the
Accord; according to Howard's girlfriend, the mark had
not been there before the shooting. As for Wilson, after
disappearing for several days and getting rid of his handgun,
he turned himself in to law enforcement.

At
trial, Billups and Hunter both testified that Wilson had
struck Howard with the gun and the gun discharged almost
immediately. Hawk testified that Wilson had hit Howard with
the gun, Howard grabbed Wilson, and then Wilson shot Howard
in the head.

The
medical examiner determined that the cause of death was a
gunshot wound to the head; Howard also had abrasions
consistent with being struck with a gun on the forehead. The
bullet had entered through Howard's left ear and exited
from behind his right ear. Gunpowder stippling at the
entrance wound indicated, based on its diameter and
concentric pattern, that the muzzle-to-target distance was
three to five inches with no obstruction. Upon questioning
about the possibility that the fatal wound had been inflicted
by a ricocheting bullet rather than a direct gunshot, both
the medical examiner and a State crime scene reconstruction
expert testified that this scenario was unlikely.
Specifically, both witnesses opined that both the stippling
pattern observed on the victim and the bullet's apparent
trajectory were inconsistent with the possibility of a
ricocheting bullet. Theorizing about the bullet mark on the
Accord, the crime scene expert suggested that two shots had
been fired, one hitting the Accord and one hitting the
victim. Based on the bullet's path through the
victim's head, the crime scene expert also rejected the
theory that the fatal gunshot had been fired simultaneously
with the blow to the victim's forehead.

Wilson
testified at trial that he had never intended to shoot Howard
and instead intended only to hit him with the gun. He also
testified that he had believed Howard was armed at the time,
though investigators found no weapons on or around Howard at
the scene.

Contrary
to Wilson's contention, the evidence described above was
sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson was guilty of the
crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560)
(1979). See also Vega v. State, 285 Ga. 32, 33 (1)
(673 S.E.2d 223) (2009) ("'It was for the jury to
determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any
conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.'").

II.

Wilson
contends that the verdict was contrary to "the
principles of justice and equity" and "decidedly
and strongly against the weight of the evidence" under
OCGA §§ 5-5-20 and 5-5-21. "When properly
raised in a timely motion, these grounds for a new
trial-commonly known as the 'general grounds'-
require the trial judge to exercise a broad discretion to sit
as a 'thirteenth juror.'" White v.
State, 293 Ga. 523, 524 (2) (753 S.E.2d 115) (2013)
(citation and punctuation omitted). Wilson did timely move
for a new trial on these general grounds, citing evidentiary
conflicts and witness credibility issues. Following a hearing
at which Wilson's counsel expressly requested that the
court exercise its discretion as the "thirteenth juror,
" the trial court denied the motion for new trial.
Wilson challenges the trial court's decision in several
respects, none of which is supported by law.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(a)
Wilson asserts that there is no evidence that the trial court
actually exercised its discretion as the "thirteenth
juror." But "the trial court need not explicitly
speak of its discretion with respect to the general grounds,
and unless the record shows otherwise, we must presume that
the trial court understood the nature of its discretion and
exercised it." Murdock v. State, 299 Ga. 177,
178 (2) (787 S.E.2d 184) (2016). This Court will thus
presume, in the absence of affirmative evidence to the
contrary, that the trial court did properly exercise such
discretion. Compare Butts v. State, 297 Ga. 766,
771-772 (3) (778 S.E.2d 205) (2015) (presuming trial court
properly exercised its discretion where the general grounds
were expressly referenced at the new trial hearing but
summary denial order did not explicitly address its weighing
of the evidence as a thirteenth juror), with White,
293 Ga. at 525 (reversing for consideration of general
grounds where record reflected that trial court reviewed new
trial motion only for legal sufficiency of the evidence);
Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262, ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.